The year of the (broken) big-city election
American cities are plagued by broken elections. In some cities, single-choice voting elects leaders whom most voters oppose. Other cities hold runoffs where turnout plummets from the initial election, meaning a smaller group of voters makes the final decision on who wins. Runoffs also limit voters to just two choices in the decisive election.
It’s no wonder that candidates and elected officials in runoff cities like Chicago and Denver have endorsed ranked choice voting (RCV) – a faster, better, cheaper alternative. RCV picks winners with broad support just like runoffs do, but voters only have to go to the polls once, and taxpayers only have to pay for one election. Because voters can rank their preferences, the “runoff” is instant. Elections are decided when turnout is naturally highest and choices are plentiful.
The chart below lists just some of the most problematic city elections in 2023. The cities below should follow the example of the 45 U.S. cities currently using RCV, which includes the largest cities in seven states.
| City | 2023 population | Population rank in its state | Voting method | Details |
| Chicago, IL | 2.6 million | #1 | Runoff | The Chicago mayoral runoff made for five extra weeks of negative campaigning. In the initial nine-way contest, flip-flopping in the polls made it difficult for voters to figure out which candidates had the best shot at making the runoff, and therefore whom they should “strategically” vote for. |
| Houston, TX | 2.3 million | #1 | Runoff | Turnout dropped in all nine Houston races that went to a runoff, with turnout dropping by 20% in the mayoral race. |
| Phoenix, AZ | 1.6 million | #1 | Runoff | Phoenix held runoff elections five months after its initial Election Day. With such a long wait, turnout dropped by 40% in the mayoral election, and 52% in the District 8 council race. |
| Philadelphia, PA | 1.5 million | #1 | Partisan primary and general election | Philadelphia uses a partisan primary and general election system, but the Democratic nominee is essentially guaranteed to win the general election. The soon-to-be mayor won the Democratic primary with just 33% of votes. |
| Dallas, TX | 1.3 million | #3 | Runoff | Dallas held a runoff election for one city council seat, and turnout declined by 51%. |
| Jacksonville, FL | 963K | #1 | Top-two primary and general election | Jacksonville’s “top-two” voting method left voters with few choices; in the combative mayoral runoff, voters were left with two staunchly different options. In one council race, two Democrats advanced, leaving Republicans without a candidate on the decisive ballot. |
| Denver, CO | 699K | #1 | Runoff | With seventeen candidates competing to be Denver’s mayor, the two candidates who advanced to the runoff won less than 50% of votes combined, meaning most voters did not see their favorite candidate on the decisive ballot. |
| Albuquerque, NM | 559K | #1 | Runoff | The Bernalillo County Clerk requested a whopping $1.2 million from the County Commission to run a runoff election for just one council district. Turnout declined by 37%, and the winner received fewer votes than she did in the general election. |
| Milwaukee, WI | 556K | #1 | Top-two primary and general election | Milwaukee held a special election to fill a vacant county supervisor seat. The second, runoff-like round saw a 75% decrease in turnout from the general election. |
| Colorado Springs, CO | 492K | #2 | Runoff | The mayoral contest invited dozens of candidates; two of them advanced to a runoff with less than 50% of support combined. Those two candidates spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their month-long runoff campaigns. |
| Memphis, TN | 622K | #2 | Single plurality election | Memphis elected a mayor with just 28% of the vote, meaning most Memphis voters actually voted against their mayor. In this 17-way, one-round, single-choice race, vote splitting was inevitable. |
| Charleston, SC | 153K | #1 | Runoff | Turnout declined by 11% in Charleston’s mayoral runoff, and by 33% in the City Council District 9 runoff. |
| Lewiston, ME | 36K | #2 | Runoff | Turnout declined by 42% in Lewiston’s mayoral runoff, and the winner received fewer votes than he did in the general election. |
Across these elections, there are several noticeable patterns. The most notable one was turnout decline in runoffs; in several cases, fewer than half the voters in the initial election returned for the runoff.
Another pattern was “the spoiler effect.” When several similar candidates run in an election, there’s a risk they will “split the vote” and sabotage each others’ chances. Runoff elections fail to solve this problem because vote-splitting can still affect who makes it to the runoff. For instance, in the first round of Chicago’s mayoral race, votes were split between middle-of-the-road progressive candidates; none of them advanced, leaving voters with two diametrically opposed candidates in the runoff.
In other cities, certain political or demographic groups actively “cleared the lane” to prevent vote splitting from happening. In Philadelphia, for instance, two highly qualified candidates (including the only Latina in the race) dropped out of the Democratic primary to throw their support behind the frontrunner. With RCV, candidates from similar ideologies or backgrounds can run without fear of splitting the vote. This is part of the reason RCV has led to historic wins for communities of color.
Large cities like New York, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City have already replaced runoffs with RCV and reaped the benefits. Other large cities deserve RCV too; it’s a simple change that gives voters better choices and a stronger voice.
